Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the proper officer of customs lacked competence to revalue imported pre-packaged goods by invoking excise concepts of section 4A in a section 17 assessment or to substitute the transaction price fixed for BCD with an RSP-based value post-importation. The Tribunal held the only enforceable price at import is the declared transaction price for BCD and the officer's limited power is to ensure RSP marking accords with the declaration up to clearance under section 47; retrospective revision under section 28 to levy additional/customs duty on alleged higher RSP was not established, so revenue's reassessment was quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the proper officer of customs lacked competence to revalue imported pre-packaged goods by invoking excise concepts of section 4A in a section 17 assessment or to substitute the transaction price fixed for BCD with an RSP-based value post-importation. The Tribunal held the only enforceable price at import is the declared transaction price for BCD and the officer's limited power is to ensure RSP marking accords with the declaration up to clearance under section 47; retrospective revision under section 28 to levy additional/customs duty on alleged higher RSP was not established, so revenue's reassessment was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.